I did think Rubio's argument was amusing, basically "If Trump sets this precedent, a president Bernie Sanders could declare climate change a national emergency and bypass congress as well".

He isn't the only politician making that kind of argument. I believe Nancy Pelosi made a simlar argument yesterday. I believe her example was a little more theoretical though. Something along the lines of a future Democratic president declaring an emergency over gun violence or some such.

I did think Rubio's argument was amusing, basically "If Trump sets this precedent, a president Bernie Sanders could declare climate change a national emergency and bypass congress as well".

DerViktim, on Feb 15 2019 - 14:17, said:

He isn't the only politician making that kind of argument. I believe Nancy Pelosi made a simlar argument yesterday. I believe her example was a little more theoretical though. Something along the lines of a future Democratic president declaring an emergency over gun violence or some such.

There's a whole list of worms in the can that Trump is trying to open.

If the Republicans make the mistake of letting Trump pull this stunt, it will turn out for them exactly the way that voiding the 60-vote minimum on nominees turned out for the Democrats. Oops.

I just wish someone would do a proper M103. Or some of the other American stuff. Nothing stupid like an incorrectly modeled T110 series, mind you, but would like to see some of the T95 series or T54 series done by someone other than Dragon.

well I must say upfront I am not so sure this post will be welcome ,on the other hand I am quite uncomfortable,so in order to gain some form of comfort I am presenting my experience here.

For several years I played only a m46 kr ,this was purchased for two reasons .1. to get out of the hopelessly antiquated british line. 2. I was not accomplished enough to drive the mutz. my thought was I would do the most good for my future teams playing a tank which afforded me greater control.

my first problem with wot after the british debacle was seeing 9 tier8 heavies in a game which I questioned often. quit spending any money with wot.

3 5 7 always bottom 5

grind to other tank lines buy premium again and lets see what wot does. the following is a particular experience to illustrate my problem with wot. ( of course I am making mistakes and still adding to my technical knowledge)

American line driving t20 not a bad tank 55% begin win rate soon followed by a consistent 43% win rate and then a 46% win rate followed by returning to a 43% all my tanks have a 43%win rate t20 has a 100% crew but no additional training

move on to pershing 55% begin win rate. all female crew, bia, 2 other at 100 and a third at 60. win rate to 46% I thought for a brief moment the improved win rate was due to the much better crew. no, return to 43% win rate with just horrible mm and battle results . very repeatable over and over

I am not a wot homie, so significant information in regard to each and every wot tank is not part of my game (yet) I am however going to play a more technical game and have begun doing so the past several months. I will move to the tier9 m46 by the end of the month when my new computer is done ( almost) I will pay with gold to get the m46 (converting exp) buy premium and see what happens. the down side is based on the above experience with the t20 and pershing I fully expect to have a 43% win rate. I and many others see this as a wot problem, that being wot sets the maximum win rate that can be obtained and that also sets the average win rate.

Question: If WoT is artificially capping your win-rate, how do you rationalize someone who has a much better win-rate than you do? Like, I'm at a 50% win-rate. I'm nowhere near the best player in here, but I can pull my weight enough to keep my win-rate at dead average. If WoT is artificially capping your win-rate, why are they capping my win-rate so much higher than yours?

Question: If WoT is artificially capping your win-rate, how do you rationalize someone who has a much better win-rate than you do? Like, I'm at a 50% win-rate. I'm nowhere near the best player in here, but I can pull my weight enough to keep my win-rate at dead average. If WoT is artificially capping your win-rate, why are they capping my win-rate so much higher than yours?

Uh, to be fair, 50% win rate is above average last I heard. Average win rate should be 48-49% (with a 2% or so draw rate?). Unless something's changed and I missed it (which is possible).

Basically, when you have a small number of battles, you might have some good or bad luck and start with an unusually high or low win rate. As you continue to play a tank and gain more battles in it, the effect of that sort of randomness will get levelled out.

In order to win more battles you need to survive longer and do more damage.

I'm just wondering why he has something like 25,000 games in the Korean Patton. I mean, sure it's a decent tank, but why spend that much time in it? And looking at his stats, he's doing an average of maybe two penetrating hits throughout the battle. That much time spent on a single tank, and yet his average damage is only 300? I would have expected someone who's sunk that much time into a single tank to be god-tier at that particular machine. You know, unless he's botting.

Basically, when you have a small number of battles, you might have some good or bad luck and start with an unusually high or low win rate. As you continue to play a tank and gain more battles in it, the effect of that sort of randomness will get levelled out.

In order to win more battles you need to survive longer and do more damage.

I always question just how much battles a player needs before the randomness levels out. 50 matches? 100 matches? I ask because would a player stick around even long enough to see this leveling of streaks or RNG or whatever.

For me, leaving things out to chance or for time to even things out is not good enough excuse or design especially for what is a straight PvP game.

I and many others see this as a wot problem, that being wot sets the maximum win rate that can be obtained and that also sets the average win rate.

WoT, nor Wargaming, cap anyones win rate. Period. It doesnt happen. The only one capable of capping their win rate is the player in question, by not learning, by making bad decisions and by playing their tanks improperly. I can look at your profile and identify exactly what your problem is: You started this game and almost immediately jumped to tier 8. Without learning any of the mechanics. Without learning how to play any of your tanks properly. And youre surprised you cant influence games? How do you expect to start doing something by immediately jumping to the near end of the progression system? That wouldbe like picking up base ball and trying to play in the world series, and then being upset at the MLB for capping your performance. You miss every other shot, and you barely do 2 shots of damage per battle in any tank you own. WoT isnt capping your win rate. You are.

Drop back down to low tiers and take the time to LEARN THE GAME. You'll be amazed at how much better you'll do with a proper understanding of things like vision, camouflage, armor and every other game mechanic you tried to skip right over.

SpectreHD, on Feb 15 2019 - 21:20, said:

I always question just how much battles a player needs before the randomness levels out. 50 matches? 100 matches? I ask because would a player stick around even long enough to see this leveling of streaks or RNG or whatever.

For me, leaving things out to chance or for time to even things out is not good enough excuse or design especially for what is a straight PvP game.

For per tank stats 100 battles is generally a good indication of how a given person will perform in that particular tank over the long run.

For account wide stats: 1k battles, at minimum, before you can judge how a player performs overall. More if theyre a brand new player and not a reroll. In this case more will always be better.

Per session: Youd need to probably hit 50 battles to see how you were playing that day. I generally use the past 30 days or 60 days to judge my recent performance in WoT.

If a player isnt going to stick around to see how their stats level out with a proper sample size then they arent going to stick around period in a competitive game, no matter what systems that games has. Stats are stats no matter where you go. Luck will always be a factor in short play sessions but it will always equalize out over large sample sizes. Like our friend up there: he has 33k battles. Hes long past the point where luck has ever been a factor in how he performs.

You arent ever going to get away from the fact that in small samples luck plays a large factor in how things happen (from how the enemy deploys, to your internet connection on that day, to any other number of factors that you have zero control over) Its that way in EVERY PVP game, not just WoT. So you're, eventually, going to have to learn to live with that fact, if you continue playing PVP games. This is the nature of statistics in gaming. Skill only shows through across large sample sizes.